Thursday, December 11, 2008

Big Putz Trade

I have been out of the loop, as they say. I watched with mild interest as the Mets signed "K-Rod" for considerably less than had been rumored. And now my eyes are opened a little wider at this creative three-team trade between the Mets, Seattle and Cleveland.

Just seeing that the participants are the Mets, Seattle, and Cleveland, I figured, immediately, that the Mets and Mariners had been screwed. But that wasn't exactly the case.

Still, I read the names and then the analysis at the intelligent sites (mostly Amazin Avenue. Also K-Law at ESPN and Carruth at Fan Graphs.) And I was kinda shocked at how universally praised this deal has been from the Mets' side.

Doesn't it strike anyone as a little uncreative? A little too Ed Wade-like, throwing prospects (however mediocre) away for relief pitchers? Yes, Putz is good. And yea, I guess the prospects are not that good.

A dynamite relief corps does not a championship team make.

Tim Marchman is with me a little bit.
Aaron Heilman is Aaron Heilman; this year aside he's a perfectly good setup man, but he had to go and I don't think anyone will miss him even if he turns into a passable fourth starter. Joe Smith, though, is actually pretty damn good, and a pitcher whom right-handers simply can't hit is a valuable thing to have around. Sean Green, whom the Mets picked up in the deal, is to Smith as Reed is to Chavez: He'll fill the role, but not nearly as well.

As for the prospects, Mike Carp is probably going to be a homeless man's John Olerud, a passable second-division starter, while Makiel Cleto is your generic live arm. They're hardly irreplacable, but you can hear overtones of late 2006, when the Mets pissed away a ton of talent including Heath Bell and Jesus Flores.
Right, well that's what bothers me. That's why I didn't really have the energy to write up my Ranking the GMs for Omar and talk about his two-year extension and do a Building the 2009 Mets and all that. Because the modus operandi of this team is just a tired cliché to me.

The minor leagues are fodder for the major leagues. In the major leagues, we throw a bunch of money and prospects around for players who have established themselves as stars already (and may be fading) and surround them with the dredges of mediocrity, "established veterans" who have outlived their usefulness and block better minor leaguers.

I know, I'm a broken record too.

All in all, I am far too harsh. Omar paid a lot for Carlos Beltran, but he has been more than worth it (though I wasn't around to criticize that deal and probably wouldn't have). He paid a lot for Johan Santana, but he has been great as well (though the jury is still out on that one). However, what did it get us? The exact same record as the year before, because while Santana was a significant improvement over the alternatives, the Mets failed to make the same upgrades at the margins, where they gave away what they had gained.

That's why Valentino Pascucci was a rallying cry.

That's why I have a hard time getting excited over the big deals, which Omar, to his credit, often gets right. Because the organizational philosophy is complete shit. The team may luck into a pennant but it will not have long-term success as long as it continues to rely on big-name-talent and lets the rest rot as if it were unimportant.

Eh. I bore myself.

6 comments:

JP said...

The two-closer approach (one in the eighth, one in the ninth) is one that all rich teams should be pursuing given the way bullpens are managed these days. It's one of the best ways to leverage their wealth. Small-market teams should be pursuing less expensive ways to manage their relievers.

-Studeman, THT

Jack Flynn said...

Good to have you back!

I thought the Putz deal was actually more creative than Omar usually is when making trades. He got a closer to be his set-up man, so he didn't focus strictly on previously established roles. He also took a role player like Chavez and swapped him for a player like Jeremy Reed, who can do all the same things but has a five percent chance of still becoming a star.

What Omar did was identify the high-impact guy and he did what he needed to do to acquire him. When it comes to trades, I'm a big believer in getting the best guy in the deal.

Triumph said...

Actually, it seems pretty inspired, John - the only drawback is Putz's injury history and whether he can regain his 2007 form. I mean, the Mets obviously aren't going to get younger, and it's clear that marginal wins are very important for a team of their ilk.

So yes, it continues the trend of treating minor league assets like nothing of import, but I think all 3 players were marginal prospects. Meanwhile you have Putz's upside which is far higher than Heilman's. It's nothing special - Heilman's xFIP being closer to Putz's than one would imagine - but it's not an Ed Wade trade where Omar trades a minor league asset for a veteran player whose VORPs will intersect and head in opposite directions in 2 years.

e poc said...

welcome back, john. good to hear from you, although your restraint on this issue is frustrating. it's a pretty bad trade, in my opinion. also, studes is usually smarter than that.

Paul Calluzzo said...

I feel like the Putz trade brings up the question the advantages/disadvantages of trading for Putz vs signing Fuentes.

I would appreciate if anyone has anything insightful to say on this.

Furthermore what is the rule regarding draft pick compensation in a situation like the mets. They have already given up there 1st Round pick after signing K-Rod? What would happen if they sign more Type A free agents?

Peter H said...

Welcome back, John. As always, your contrarian take is appreciated.

I agree with you that developing young players is the key to long-term success. I just think the Mets' deficiencies in this area are more the product of bad scouting & drafting than of organizational philosophy. They obviously depleted their farm system with the Santana deal , but I think it was an absolutely necessary trade, given the Mets win-now mode, and the fact that none of the players they gave away were elite prospects. I share your disdain of the Milledge trade, which could very well haunt the Mets in the future, but even that, in my opinion, had more to do with personality clashes than undervaluing prospects.

I do think the Mets have a very poor strategy of developing their farm system. Using top draft picks on relievers is an idiotic strategy. They've also rushed some of their top prospects through the farm system before they've had a chance to develop. OTOH, they seem to have developed a bunch of prospects at the lower levels, so hopefully at least some of those guys will pan out.